Action for Public Transport (N.S.W.) Inc.

New Parramatta Rd Urban Renewal Strategy

Submission to Draft

Introduction

Action for Public Transport (NSW) ("APT NSW") is a transport advocacy group active in Sydney since 1974. Our members are users of public transport services.

We make this submission because decisions being made now about transport, particularly Westconnex, are central to the success or failure of any attempt to civilise Parramatta Rd. Far from being an aid to that endeavour, the Westconnex project is a direct threat that UrbanGrowth needs to be countering, not accommodating.

Synopsis

This submission urges UrbanGrowth to critically review the assumptions made in its Draft Parramatta Road Urban Renewal Strategy:

The ills of Parramatta Rd are correctly diagnosed in the Strategy: Pedestrians and cyclists find little pleasure there. Shops and businesses operate in a difficult environment. Overpowered by traffic congestion, it has ceased to be a comfortable environment for anyone1

UrbanGrowth is assuming that Westconnex will reduce the level of traffic congestion on Parramatta Road and position UrbanGrowth to cure its ills. That flawed assumption reflects the refusal or inability of traffic modellers to account for the phenomenon of induced traffic, which has been empirically established over many years2.

The Strategy assumes that its precincts3 can be home to sizable new communities, enjoying vibrant streets and pleasant environments; and accommodate intrusive portals, ramps and on-ramps that will cleave them in two.
The Strategy completely ignores the devastating impact of the latest incarnation of Westconnex on the Bays Precinct (odd, as UrbanGrowth has assumed responsibility for that area) and King Street Newtown (exactly the kind of place UrbanGrowth seems to want to emulate).

UrbanGrowth appears to assume that better public transport will follow increases in density. That would certainly be wise, but it is not a safe assumption, as shown by recent experience with the Harold Park development, (mentioned on page 9 as a model for Camperdown). There are several additional bus routes proposed in the Strategy but the only firm transport proposal is, as usual, a road proposal (Westconnex).

Conversely, UrbanGrowth should not assume that good public transport services require a wholesale shift to high-rise development. There are many very desirable places in Sydney's east and north shore that have good public transport services, but retain the human scale that is central to their walkability and their livability. Landcom's guide to density4 shows that there are many different ways to pursue increases in density, some more gentle than others.

The Strategy seems to assume that some areas are already "well serviced by public transport" because there are existing bus routes somewhere in the vicinity. The only way to tell whether this assumption is realistic is to closely examine timetables and routes. Lines on a map do not constitute a public transport service.

We note with interest that UrbanGrowth has secured a portion of Westconnex funding for its intended improvements to Parramatta Rd. APT NSW believes that the whole of the Westconnex budget (in the order of $15B) would be far more wisely spent on public transport improvements (focused towards Parramatta, rather than the existing CBD). Unlike Westconnex, this approach would genuinely facilitate the regeneration of Parramatta Road.

Induced traffic

The notion that Westconnex will reduce the level of traffic congestion on Parramatta Road and position UrbanGrowth to cure these ills is irredeemably flawed.5

If building roads solves congestion, the construction of the M4 parallel to the western end of Parramatta Rd should have removed traffic from that stretch and it would already have regenerated, with or without UrbanGrowth. That's not what happened, as anyone can see.

How many more times will the M4 motorway "need" to be widened? How much more land and money will this tail-chasing exercise consume? Why are we doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?

UrbanGrowth is presumably adopting this position on the say-so of the Westconnex Delivery Authority, which the Strategy suggests is ceding some part of its budget to UrbanGrowth. This must be tempting, but it is ill-advised. UrbanGrowth should be in the vanguard of opposition to this ill-considered, archaic and expensive plan. And still keep the money.

Walkability and severance

Public transport and walkable environments are mutually supportive, as we are sure UrbanGrowth already knows. Motorway on-ramps and off-ramps, and gaping tunnel portals, are hostile to both. There are a lot of these marked on the precinct maps as "under investigation". APT NSW believes investigative efforts should be directed to more productive, less destructive public transport projects; even better, we could get on with several that have been fully investigated, fully designed, and repeatedly announced, such as a rail link from Parramatta to Epping.

Public transport services

The Strategy takes a superficial approach to public transport services and the needs of public transport passengers. It correctly predicts a need for additional services, but UrbanGrowth appears to be assuming that better public transport will automatically follow increases in density.

This is not a safe assumption. It certainly has not happened in Harold Park, mentioned on page 9 as a model for Camperdown. Off-peak frequencies on bus route 433 remain at a dismal 30 minutes, despite the high density of the new development and its proximity to the city and two universities.

UrbanGrowth needs to take care not to confuse a line on a map with an actual, useful public transport service. The only way to tell the difference is to closely examine timetables and routes (meandering routes are a remnant of old bus fiefdoms).

Having done so, APT NSW has found that many of the bus services listed on page 14 of the Strategy as part of the "public transport focus for the Parramatta Road corridor and surrounding areas" either do not exist or run at such low frequencies (30 minutes or more) for much of the day that they cannot be an attractive mode of transport.

50-60 mins 5:10 to 6:55 am30 mins all day to 10:36 amLast service 11:15 pm

Sunday

30 mins all day from 6:25 am to 8:36 pmLast services 9:35 and 10:36 pm.

Route M41 frequencies (Hurstville to Burwood direction)

Weekday AM peak

10 minutes

Weekday Off peak

15 minutes

Weekday afternoon peak

10 minutes

Weekday Evenings (7pm to 8:50)

30 minutes to BurwoodNo service beyond BurwoodLast service 8:50pm

Saturday

20 minutes to BurwoodNo service beyond BurwoodLast service 8:50pm

Sunday

20 minutes to BurwoodNo service beyond BurwoodLast service 8:10pm

The other services mentioned in the Strategy do not exist, so far as we know.

Rouse Hill to Hurstville via Parramatta and Bankstown

Burwood to Chatswood via Drummoyne and Lane Cove

Hurstville to Sydney CBD via Earlwood and Newtown (King Street)

Is there a firm date for these services to commence and what are the frequencies proposed?

Unless fast, high frequency services are in place before increases in population occur, the result will indeed be the increased traffic congestion that is widely predicted in commentary on UrbanGrowth's plans. It is in everyone's interest, motorists, residents and public transport users alike, to prevent this.

The construction of the Leppington railway line in advance of significant residential development in that area is the model to follow.

What has been, and still is, lacking is the evolution of public transport from mainly a radial commute network into also becoming a rapid interconnected web of routes to make suburban nodes more accessible.

By making cross-town public transport travel to the intersection points as convenient as accessing the CBD, nodes of knowledge based employment and other activities can agglomerate in a self reinforcing process. The M41 (above) is a step in that direction. This can only work if frequencies are high as it depends on seamless interchanges between services.

Density

The density argument we will leave to others except in this respect: good public transport services do not require a wholesale shift to high-rise, high-density living. The suggestion that it does is an opportunistic move by a segment of the development industry attempting to overcome objections to the kind of developments they are accustomed to building, and wish to continue building, primarily for investors.

The typology of development in areas that have comparatively good public transport (like the eastern suburbs and the north shore) is varied. There is a range of options suitable for different people at different stages of life. The differences in public transport use and effective density in these areas owes more to the level of public transport services provided, the amount of land devoted to asphalt, and the walkability of the streets than it does to the typology of housing.

Landcom's guide to density6 shows that there are many different ways to pursue increases in density, some more gentle than others.

Blues Point tower is no better at supporting a decent public transport system than the terrace houses and variety of human scaled alternatives that surround it.

Better uses of $15 billion

UrbanGrowth has secured a portion of Westconnex funding for its intended improvements to Parramatta Rd.

APT NSW believes that the remainder of the Westconnex budget (in the order of $15B) would be far more wisely spent on public transport improvements (focused towards Parramatta, rather than the existing CBD). This approach would genuinely facilitate the regeneration of Parramatta Road.

Westconnex does not enable a recovery for Parramatta Road, it sounds its death knell. We hope to see UrbanGrowth in the vanguard of opposition to this ill-considered, archaic and expensive plan.